Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Sukah 22

1) "CHAVOT RAMI"

OPINIONS: In the case of a Sukah which has two layers of Sechach, a lower level and an upper level, the boards of which cover alternating areas, Abaye says that the Sukah is only valid if the lower and upper boards and not more than three Tefachim away from each other (and thus "Lavud" makes them into one full, flat roof). If they are more than three Tefachim away from each other, Abaye says that the Sukah is Pasul. Rava, though, argues and says that the Sukah is valid because of the principle of "Chavot Rami" -- the upper boards are considered to descend to the space between the lower boards, completing the roof of the Sukah. The Halachah follows the opinion of Rava, and "Chavot Rami" makes the Sukah valid.

The Gemara qualifies the principle of "Chavot Rami" and says that it works only when the width of each board in the upper level is at least one Tefach. The Rishonim argue whether this is the only requirement, or if there are other conditions that are necessary in order to apply the principle of "Chavot Rami."

(a) RASHI (end of DH v'Tani Alah) and TOSFOS (DH Koros) imply that this is the only requirement; as long as the upper board has a width of one Tefach, they are viewed as filling in the spaces below and making a complete roof. The width of the space below them, between the lower boards, is immaterial. (See CHIDUSHEI ANSHEI SHEM on the Rif, and the BACH OC 631.)

(b) The RAN and RITVA add a second requirement. The space between the lower boards must also be at least one Tefach wide. If the spaces below are less than one Tefach wide, "Chavot Rami" does not apply. This is learned from the Mishnah in Ohalos quoted by the Gemara, which says that between the lower boards there must be at least one Tefach in order for "Chavot Rami" to work. (Rashi and Tosfos, on the other hand, learn that the reason the Mishnah there says that there must be a Tefach between the lower boards is merely because it already stated that the width of the upper boards must be equal to the space below them, and since it is necessary to have a Tefach in the upper boards, it expresses this by saying that the space below them is one Tefach wide. But even if the upper boards are one Tefach wide and the spaces below are not, "Chavot Rami" still applies.)

(c) The RITVA cites a third opinion that maintains that the spaces between the boards on the bottom row must not only be one Tefach wide, but they must be wide enough to contain the boards on top (that is, if the boards on top are two Tefachim, the spaces below must also be two Tefachim). Although the Ritva rejects this opinion, the PISKEI RID rules like this opinion, and this is also the ruling of the RAMBAM (Hilchos Sukah 5:21) according to the KESEF MISHNAH.

HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 631:5) rules like the Rambam (c), and the REMA rules like the Ran (b).

22b

QUESTION: The Gemara asks that our Mishnah (22a) and the first Mishnah in the Maseches (2a) contradict each other. Our Mishnah states that when the shade in the Sukah is more than the sunlight, the Sukah is valid, which implies that if there is an equal amount of shade as sunlight, the Sukah is Pasul. The first Mishnah, though, says that when the sunlight in the Sukah is more than the shade, the Sukah is Pasul, which implies that if they are equal, the Sukah is valid!

The Gemara answers that one Mishnah is referring to "on top" and the other is referring to "on bottom." RASHI explains as follows. Sunlight spreads in the Sukah as it gets farther away from the Sechach. Our Mishnah, which implies that a Sukah with equal amounts of shade and sunlight is Pasul, is referring to the level of the Sechach itself; it means that when there is an equal amount of Sechach as there is open space, the Sukah is Pasul. Rashi explains that it is Pasul because when the sunlight reaches the floor of the Sukah, there is more sunlight than shade.

Rashi's words are difficult to understand. Why does Rashi say that the Sukah is Pasul because there is more sunlight than shade at the floor of the Sukah? He should say that it is Pasul simply because at the *top* of the Sukah, there is not more Sechach than open space, and thus the open space is not Batel to the Sechach (see Rashi beginning of 2a)! Why does Rashi say that it depends on how much light there is at the bottom of the Sukah?

It must be that Rashi is following the opinion of Rav Papa who holds (15a) that Parutz k'Omed (equal amounts of Sechach and open space) is valid. Therefore, Rashi needs to give another reason why a Sukah with equal amounts of Sechach and open space is *Pasul*, and so he says that there is more sunlight than shade at the bottom of the Sukah.

We thus see from Rashi that (1) if the shade and the sunlight are equal the Sukah is valid, and (2) that we measure the amount of shade and sunlight that the Sukah produces by how much shade appears on the *floor* of the Sukah.

Rashi, however, contradicts these points in his next words. Rashi explains that when the Mishnah at the beginning of the Maseches implies that when there are equal amounts of shade and sunlight, the Sukah is valid, it is referring to when the shade and sunlight are equal on the *floor* of the Sukah, because that indicates that there is *more* shade than sunlight at the *top* of the Sukah, at the level of the Sechach. Rashi is now saying that it depends how much shade is created at the *top* of the Sukah! Rashi should have said that the Sukah is valid because we measure the amount of shade on the floor of the Sukah, and since we rule that Parutz k'Omed is valid, the Sukah is valid because there is an equal amount of shade as sunlight! Instead, Rashi implies now that we measure the shade on top, and not on bottom! Furthermore, he implies that there must be a *majority* of shade (on top) and not equal amounts. Rashi contradicts himself in two regards!

ANSWERS:

(a) The RASHASH, based on the RAN, answers that Rashi is purposely contradicting himself. Rashi is explaining the two Mishnayos according to two different opinions. First, Rashi explains that even according to Rav Papa, who says that Parutz k'Omed is valid, the Sukah that has equal amounts of Sechach and open space on top will be Pasul because we measure the amount of shade on bottom, and there is less shade than sunlight. According to Rav Papa's opinion, it is obvious why the Sukah is valid if there is an *equal* amount of shade and sunlight on bottom, for Parutz k'Omed is valid.

Next, Rashi explains that the implication of the first Mishnah -- that when there is an equal amount of shade as sunlight on the bottom of the Sukah -- holds true even according to Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua, who says that Parutz k'Omed is Pasul. According to his opinion, we must say that the shade is measured at the *top* of the Sukah, and not on the floor, and that is why the Sukah is valid even when there is an equal amount of shade an sunlight on the floor -- because we can assume that there is *more* shade than sunlight at the level of the Sechach. Thus, the first half of Rashi is working out our Mishnah according to Rav Papa, and the second half of Rashi is working out the first Mishnah according to Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua.

However, we find that the TUR (OC 631) makes a statement similar to that of Rashi. The Tur, though, is telling us the Halachah, and is not explaining to us the meaning of the Gemara's answer. Why, then, should he be explaining both opinions? Since the Tur rules like Rav Papa, that Parutz k'Omed is valid (OC 628 and later in 631), he should have explained the Halachah only according to Rav Papa!

(b) It appears that Rashi and the Tur hold like the ROSH. The ROSH (2:3) writes that the argument of Parutz k'Omed applies only in a case when there is half valid Sechach and half invalid Sechach. In the case of half valid Sechach and half open space, the issue of Parutz k'Omed does not apply, because there is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai which requires that there be a *majority of shade* in the Sukah. (Similarly, the principle of "Lavud," which normally enables us to view an open space as closed, does not work to validate the Sukah when there is more sunlight than shade). What, then, does Rashi mean when he says that the Sukah that has an equal amount of Sechach as open space is Pasul because it has more sunlight on bottom? He should have said that it is Pasul because it is equal on top!

The answer is that when we measure the amount of shade in the Sukah, we look for the total amount of shade that is cast from the top of the Sukah until the floor. Therefore, just looking at the Sechach alone, or at the floor alone, is not enough. Rashi says that if, at the level of the Sechach, the shade and sunlight are equal, then we know that by the time they reach the ground, there is more sunlight than shade, and thus the entire Sukah (from top to bottom) has more sunlight than shade. On the other hand, if, at the floor of the Sukah, the shade and sunlight are equal, then we know that at the top of the Sukah, there is more shade than sunlight coming in. Although the shade diminishes as it comes closer to the floor, since at the floor they are equal, when we take into consideration the entire amount of shade throughout the height of the Sukah, we know that there is more shade than sunlight. (M. Kornfeld)